The CDC did actually change their definition of vaccination in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. The updated definition is more scientifically accurate, but the timing of the change caused a lot of public confusion and the CDC did a bad job of communicating the reason for the change.
I actually agree with you but the CDC changed their definition of the word "vaccine" several times, most recently in 2021. The latest revision is now more scientifically accurate. But it's understandable how the changes caused confusion among some members of the public.
Here's a link to the CDC definition from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20171203162427/https://www.cdc.g... ("Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.")
> It's all marketing at this point.
Definitions made prior to the pandemic would already fit the mRNA vaccines, therefore the claim that the definition was stretched for marketing/persuasion reasons don't really hold water.
> Not FDA approved in the US. "approval pending"
This FDA link claims Cominarty was approved in August 23 2021. The word "pending" is not found in this page.
Of course the actual individual version for COVID-19 is newer, but then again, so is any flu vaccine that is updated basically yearly. What matters is the age of the "vaccine platform".
This is not how public health messaging works, or how media narratives in general function today.
The CDC, being a public health agency, had a definition of vaccine that was intended for the public's consumption. Scientists generally do not have to check the CDC website for terms of art regarding their profession.
There is/(was?) a general understanding that a 'vaccine' was an injection or spray or ingestable that primed the immune system to fight a potential 'real' infection of a disease. This priming meant that while you may come into contact with the disease, you would be exceedingly unlikely to develop symptoms.
Changing the public definition of the vaccine after the initial covid vaccines had already been released to allow 'vaccine' to mean any therapeutic that gave any degree of protection from a disease is an obvious bait and switch. Evidence of this definition being changed as a damage control measure due to floundering public trust is evident from emails made available through FOIA requests.
We are not going to pretend that updating that definition was a sincere miscommunication of the science when the text is so obviously not scientific. The political motivations and objectives are clear.
If this had been a single event we may still express doubt, but these language games that prey upon the public's preconceived definitions of common vocabulary have been rampant for years at this point. 'With-cause' being another recent instance.
When reporting covid hospitalizations the phrase "X people hospitalized with covid" was used. Last week we had Fauchi on air explain that although those people are in the hospital _with_ a positive covid test many of them are asymptomatic and are in fact at the hospital _because_ of something other than covid; they just happened to test positive as well. Yet for months these numbers stood without question or explanation allowing a narrative of 'high covid hospitalizations' to be pushed.
Effectively we are treating the public as if they are idiots for hearing the obvious common parlance meaning of such statements-- "hospitalized with covid" when instead they should read as lawyers questioning every word. This is governmental malpractice.
A small note on season flu vaccines. The public generally understands that scientists are playing a guessing game with the flu and some years they guess better than others. But on years where they do guess well, the flu vaccine operates as the public generally understands it in what I've written above. Not only has there been no messaging that these covid 'vaccines' are playing a similar guessing game there has in fact been the exact opposite messaging. We developed an 'alpha variant vaccine' now we are developing a omicron variant vaccine. These are being discussed like treatments that 'should work' similar to a flu vaccine on a good year.
I replied elsewhere about the meaning of “vaccine” (we’ve called the flu vaccine a vaccine for many years, with only ~50% typical effectiveness).
As for the messaging:
1) I would bet all of my money that at least 95% of the people complaining about the CDC updating their definition had never once read the previous definition until they read some article trying to cast the CDCs actions in a nefarious light. It’s not clear to me why this redefinition is worthy of a news story at all.
2) I am very doubtful that the CDC engaging as you’ve described would help anything. Their detractors would absolutely call it propaganda.
> every news source reachable via Google says the change has nothing to do with COVID or the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine.
Does that sound logical to you? The definition went unchanged for years until the CDC came under direct attack for the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine compared to other vaccines. If it's unrelated, wouldn't that make it quite a coincidence?
It wasn’t just here - the CDC and potentially others (I haven’t looked that hard) changed their definitions as well.
I’ve got no issue with making terms more correct, but I think one could make the argument that the covid vaccine is more similar to a flu shot than the polio vaccine w.r.t public perception.
> It really hasn't, and it boggles the mind how anyone could even attempt to gaslight about this well-documented topic.
Just as one example, CDC quietly changed the definition of vaccination from producing "immunity to a disease" to producing "protection from a disease". This happened in September when it became clear that covid vaccines do not provide immunity (compare https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm in August and September in web.archive.org).
I am sure you will find a reason why this is not gaslighting. For me it is a pure form of exactly that.
Were previous vaccines at least as effective as not getting vaccinated? Ontario data is showing vaccinated getting infected at higher rates than unvaccinated. (3rd grahp)
https://covid-19.ontario.ca/data?fbclid=1
If that's the case, its more like a therapeutic than vaccine. Literally going out to get some sunshine is therapeutic.
I'm sure billion dollar pharma companies love that they can sell half baked products to this lower standard going forward.
At least for most other products you can get a refund for something that doesn't work half the time. In this situation you can't even sue if it caused you injury. Hope you don't support this corrupt fuckry.
The CDC once again continues to bungle its messaging, which is only going to fuel vaccination controversy and anti-vaxxer talking points.
According to the CDC, "The COVID-19 vaccines approved and authorized in the United States continue to be effective at reducing risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death."[1]
Walensky has repeated this[2]:
> “The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe — as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given," Walensky said.
> "They are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant," she added.
If you have vaccines for which the initial series is "highly effective" at reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization and death, why would you tell people that you're considering changing the definition of "fully vaccinated" to exclude individuals who have received the initial series?
The CDC has been horrible on this topic. They’ve been incredibly reluctant to say that vaccinated people can act any differently than non-vaccinated people...
He has every reason to be upset about having a very rare complication.
At the point that you start casting the CDC as nefarious actors for clarifying the definition of “vaccination”, though, you’re just spreading FUD. If there was some substance to the criticism, it would be a different thing. But there is no substance to the criticism. No vaccine has ever given 100% immunity to everyone who got it. Nothing changed. It’s also inaccurate to claim that the vaccine does nothing to prevent infection. Breakthrough infections are certainly happening but unvaccinated are getting infected at a higher rate. (Plus the risk of severe infection.)
This narrative that they’re sneaking around changing definitions to trick people is absurd. They made the change publicly. The data used to make decisions around COVID is public. These aren’t back room secret deals. It’s public health policy being endlessly debated in public.
> And to be honest its a valid assessment because who would've thought we would need a 4th booster as Israel has done?
A ton of people expected this. People were talking about likely needing yearly boosters before the vaccines were even available. Maybe every 6 months is sooner than expected but boosters were totally predicted.
Potentially related - "How major media outlets screwed up the vaccine ‘breakthrough’ story" [1]. Outlines media mis-interpretation of an unfinished, internal CDC presentation last week (roughly lines up with your July 30 story).
If you read it carefully, that CDC study compares vaccinated vs unvaccinated in the population of people that recovered from covid.
It does not compare vaccinated (and not recovered) vs recovered (but not vaccinated), but I have seen many people misinterpret it in this way including journalists.
I think this sort of misdirection is by design with how often I see it happening, the right does not have a monopoly on spreading misinformation.
The article I posted has a quote and video of the director of the CDC explicitly saying in March of last year that vaccinated people "do not carry the virus" and were 90% protected __against infection__.
That's a direct quote from the head of the CDC, it does not get more official or more of a primary source than that IMHO.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-976069264061
reply